From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cpanel2.fuitadnet.com (cpanel2.fuitadnet.com [67.15.28.4]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j56NNcDR005487 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:23:38 GMT Received: from [66.168.101.147] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by cpanel2.fuitadnet.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DfQwi-0005mx-O0 for gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:53 -0500 Message-ID: <42A4DB0E.30905@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0500 From: Michael Tindal User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050528) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel2.fuitadnet.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - gentoo.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Archives-Salt: 4d9d9864-759d-4832-ad77-6e1b5f914928 X-Archives-Hash: b8d88f0a522eec5e08d14ebb493dfd86 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a problem like this. While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame. So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this. This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process more transparent. This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation was handled happens again. The current proposal can be found here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so). Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to make them more explicit: - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be public). Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human error in that regard. - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision. Althoug the terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a rightful addendum. - Evidence used must have the supporting context available. This might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc. This is to ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action against a developer. If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first before changing the wording on the proposal. Mike -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0 rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI= =6UDC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list